Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home

What's Wrong With Columbia Heights Educational Campus

Any savvy teacher will tell you that after five years one begins to know how to do it.

Rhee, Tukeva, and like-minded reformers seem to be under the impression that experience in the classroom is one of the least important factors in improving education. I donât think I taught with more than four or five people at CHEC who had more than five years of experience in the classroom.

by The Reflective Educator

While I was in China, some alert readers informed me that Jay Matthews said in a comment in this post that he'd never spoken to any teachers who'd ever had a problem with the administration at Columbia Heights Educational Campus. So I emailed Jay and he said he'd be glad to hear from me and any other teachers who ever had trouble with the administration at CHEC. So, I was obviously happy to write him quite a bit about my troubles there. The problem is that I'm afraid all of the teachers I reached out to about contacting Jay along with me are either to busy to write much or afraid of coming forward because they still work in the highly political system that is DCPS. So if you, or anyone you know has taught at CHEC or is currently teaching there, please email Jay at matthewsj@washpost.

Anyway, I thought I'd post what I emailed Jay. I've changed some of it in order to avoid putting names out into the public, but I did include all of the names in my original letter. Here it is:

What's wrong with CHEC?

Hi Jay. Thanks for the opportunity to tell you a little about my experiences at CHEC. First a little background:

I moved to DC in the fall of 2009 to work in DCPS after having taught for three years elsewhere because I thought Michele Rhee was taking DCPS in the right direction (I've since changed my mind). I taught at CHEC for only a semester. I quit in January of this year with a number of teachers because I truly detested working there. I found it to be an awfully unhealthy work environment.

Before I explain why it was an unhealthy environment for me, I'd like to note that I know the school receives a lot of good press for a lot of the amazing achievements that Maria Tukeva has worked tirelessly for. She certainly deserves recognition for demanding that all students be held to high standards, for organizing funds to build one of the nicest facilities in all of DCPS, and for recruiting some amazing people to work at that school. There are a number of negative things that aren't being reported in the press, however. Some of them are specific to CHEC's administrative team, and some of them are reflective of what I believe is going on across the District under the Rhee administration. I've tried to separate the challenges I dealt with as a teacher at Columbia Heights into these two categories.

Problems Specific to CHEC

Fake AP and Poor Scheduling

When I was hired at CHEC in June of 2009, I was told that I would be teaching world history. That sounded good to me since I had experience with the course in both of the prior schools Iâd worked at. However, when I arrived to begin work at CHEC in the third week of August, I was told a few days before school started that I would also be teaching AP US History. This came as a shock to me because I had never taught US History, much less AP US History. I had never worked at a school were teachers were allowed to teach an AP course without first having taught the non-AP version. Iâd also never worked at a school where AP teachers weren't required to attend the AP conference for the course. AP courses are especially rigorous enterprises, not only for students, but also for teachers, especially first-year AP teachers. You don't exactly have time to plan a quality AP course in a few days.

Although I was told I would be sent to the AP training for US History in October, by the time the conference rolled around, I (along with every other AP teacher in the same boat as me -- i.e. they'd never been trained in AP) was told that the money wasn't available and that we might have an opportunity to go the following year. On top of that, I was told by the administration two days into teaching my "AP US History course" that I would also be responsible for teaching AP US Government to the same group of students, and that they would all need to pass both exams at the end of the year. Again, I was shocked. Here was another AP course I'd never taught nor been trained for. I had never taken either of the AP tests and wasn't even sure that I could pass them myself. So, how was I supposed to ensure my students would?

I asked my social studies administrator, Darry Strickland, for help in developing the curriculum. I was told that the school apparently had no curriculum in place for either AP US History, AP US Government, or the sections of World History II I was supposed to be teaching. My course syllabus was never even sent into College Board for approval (as is required for a course to be officially designated AP). On top of that, Mr Strickland was not able to find more than two students to take the AP US courses for the first five weeks of the semester. Five weeks in, seven more students were literally pushed into my AP US classroom while complaining they didn't belong there. I wasn't sure how to handle that. Was I supposed to start over from scratch with all the material I'd attempted to cover in the previous five weeks? The students that had been added were clearly not in a position to be reading the AP textbooks I'd been assigned. Many of them struggled with English, and I certainly had no clue how to teach English language learners how to pass two AP tests that I had never taken and passed myself. Again, I contacted the administration for help. Each time I received an email back telling me they would meet with me to discuss the challenge. Those meetings never occurred. I would go to meet Mr Strickland and he wouldn't be where he said he would be. He would tell me he'd come to my room to work on curriculum and then never show up. Nobody ever observed my AP US courses, and I never received feedback on how to improve them.

After nine weeks of this, I was told that, due to lack of enrollment and the fact that an English teacher was quitting, I would no longer be teaching the AP US courses. They were closed and the students received no credit for that quarter. Instead, I would be taking over an AP Senior English class from the teacher who was quitting. This was another class that I'd never taught, never taken the AP test in, or attended the AP training for. I taught that class for a week before it was taken from me and given to a man who'd previously been working as a special education aid and had no teaching credentials, much less AP English experience. He told me his only experience that could possibly have made him qualified to teach the three AP English courses he was assigned was that he once taught interior design at the Seattle Art Institute.

In place of the AP Senior English class, I was given a senior capstone class that had been taught by another teacher for three weeks before I took over. Again, I was provided with no support, no curriculum, and no instruction on how to teach a senior capstone class. By the beginning of November, I'd given up asking for help with my courses. I'd met with Ms Tukeva about the lack of support from Mr Strickland (who was both my content-area administrator and my assigned mentor), I'd emailed Mr Strickland and Dahlia Aguilar (my grade-level) administrator numerous times and received little feedback (none of it useful), and I'd reached out to other teachers who'd been at CHEC the previous year (it's very difficult to find anyone at the school who's been around longer than two or three years), but found little to no help and ended up attempting to navigate foreign courses on my own. I know my students suffered from the lack of support I received and the constant teacher turnover going on around them.

Too Many Strategies and Worthless Observations

I came to CHEC believing DC was doing the right thing. Even more, I believed CHEC was doing the right thing. It seemed like an amazing school after the two weeks I spent there during the summer orientation. They had all kinds of great mission statements, strategies, and presentations. I drank the kool-aid quickly, and I really believed I'd ended up at a dream school. Yes, the workload would be big, but I was ready for that because I wanted to be an amazing teacher. By November, however, it became clear that the school lacked focus. One colleague said it felt like the administration just kept throwing things at the wall without even waiting to see if they stuck. The administration would harp on a different group of "research-based" teaching strategies every week, but always claim to have the authority to hold you accountable for anything they'd ever mentioned, which is what observations turned out to be: a list of every strategy they'd ever mentioned that they didn't see you do in the classroom in the fifteen minutes they watched you. This is why I never felt like the observations were helpful. They were just a litany of things you did wrong as a teacher without helping you become better. Once in my post-observation with Mr Strickland, he told me that he thought I was making strategies up. I responded that I most certainly was not and explained why I did what I did. He told me what I was doing wasn't effective. I asked why not and what I could to improve. He ignored my question and told me we needed to move on with the post-observation. On a different occasion, a colleague of mine asked Mr Strickland why were were working in a fashion that seemed counter-productive. Instead of explaining, he told us we were doing it that way because he said so. He then asked if that satisfied our curiosity.

Why didn't the administration wait to see if any of the strategies were actually good for the students?

My guess would be that most of the long list of "research-based" strategies were being done for money. CHEC receives a lot of money from non-profit organizations who want to see schools use particular "research-based" strategies successfully. Fight for Children awarded CHEC $100,000 last year for implementing a number of things it sees as contributing to an overall positive school climate. This money makes CHEC beholden to doing what will earn it money over what works best for its kids.

Administrator Y

Possibly the largest of CHEC's problems is Administrator Y's relationship with Administrator X. The staff believes it to be public knowledge that Administrator X engaged in a romantic relationship with Administrator Y in the past, and may be continuing that relationship currently. Most believe the relationship to be the only reason Admin Y has a job. Y is known to constantly skirt his responsibilities, verbally abuse staff and students, refer to students with racial slurs, ditch administrative meetings, engage in physical altercations with students, sexually harass staff members, and lie on teachers' evaluations. During the 2008-2009 school year, the staff brought something like a 32-page document of allegations against Admin Y, which Michele Baskin still has if you'd like to contact her. Everyone knows that Y is unfit to work in a school, but everyone also knows about his relationship with Admin X. The few staff members I spoke to who'd actually worked at the school for longer than Admin Y (all of whom quit this year) told me that Bell was a much better place to work before Admin Y arrived. Y's bipolar, egomaniacal personality has led to numerous staff quitting. The department Y oversees will have only one teacher who's been at CHEC for two full years beginning this fall (out of nine or ten total).

Problems at CHEC and Throughout DPCS

Distrust of Administration

The relations between the faculty and administration at CHEC were the worst I'd ever seen in my short career. While I think this phenomenon is widespread across the District, I believe it is particularly bad at CHEC. The faculty believed the administration were out to play the gotcha game. Nobody I talked to believed the observations conducted by the administration were being done to support teaching. Rather, people felt observations were being done as a means of hiring and firing the school's way to great teaching. As a result, teachers made up data, lied about teaching, and generally said whatever they thought the administration wanted to hear in order to receive a good rating and not get fired at the end of the year.

Lack of Classroom Experience

I think one of the big reasons relationships were so strained and observations were so meaningless is because few of the administrators had real experience in the classroom. They were all very well-versed in contemporary educational jargon and talking points, but they were all hard-pressed to go beyond them. Admin Q, my grade-level administrator, did two years in Teach for America at the elementary level. My content-area administrator for social studies, Admin Y, did Teach for America at the elementary level plus a few more years before being fired from his most recent teaching job. My content-area administrator for English did two years of Teach for America before going to Harvard to get her certificate for administration. And I'm not sure if Ms Tukeva was ever a teacher. This is a trend across the district. Just this summer at School Without Walls, a twenty-six-year-old counselor was promoted to assistant principal despite the fact that she has no teaching experience. Nevertheless she will be responsible for conducting IMPACT evaluations and somehow providing teachers feedback they're supposed to use to improve.

When people like me (someone with only four years of teaching experience) are being observed by people with less experience in the classroom and often no experience in their particular area of teaching (secondary social studies/English for me), problems are bound to arise. My superiors may have some good suggestions for me every now and then, but I often found myself being directed to do things that I believed to be contrary to what was good for the students. Admin Y would regularly give me projects for the kids to do without any consultation with me as to how to make them meaningful. He would hand these to me at the last minute and expect me to implement them the next day. That's not really how quality teaching works. Admin Q would often suggest I try this strategy or that, but then when I ran into difficulties implementing them, Admin Q would be at a loss as to what to do. There is a lot of lip-service paid to supporting teachers in the District and at CHEC, and a lot of superficial support is provided -- primarily geared toward helping teachers understand IMPACT. However, when it came time to deal with the real and often substantial challenges of teaching in DC, administrators who have little to no classroom experience are not in a position to provide any meaningful support to their staff.

Rhee, Tukeva, and like-minded reformers seem to be under the impression that experience in the classroom is one of the least important factors in improving education. I don't think I taught with more than four or five people at CHEC who had more than five years of experience in the classroom. And I don't believe that more than one or two of the administrators had more than five years experience in the classroom. I couldn't disagree with this approach more. I think there's absolutely something to be said for a person's intrinsic ability and energy when it comes to being a great teacher, but there is no substitute for time spent in the classroom. As someone who's only been teaching for four years, Iâm confident that I'm three times the teacher now than I was when I began. As someone who's always striving to improve, I'm positive I will only be better four years from now.

Juking the Stats

Across DCPS, data is being manipulated to suggest things are going better than they really are. Guy Brandenburg and Chris Bergfaulk have pointed this out numerous times. I believe you're familiar with their work. I was pressured on a number of occasions to pass students who rarely or never attended class. When I chose to fail a handful of students who skipped more than forty days of school in a single semester, Admin Q lowered my IMPACT score for failing to reach those students. If I had simply passed them, I would have kept a good score and nobody would have checked to see if those students actually deserved to pass. There was an unspoken understanding that all students should be passing every class, regardless of whether they were actually achieving or not. I never talked to a teacher of senior students who believed a majority of their students were actually prepared to graduate and go to college.


I recognize that it may be easy to ascribe CHEC's high teacher attrition rate to the administration holding them to higher expectations, but I'm afraid that would be a misinterpretation. Teachers leave that school at a high rate because they were never interested in making a career out of education, because they're provided with little to no support, and because they've been abused by the administration.

I also know that CHEC was recently ranked very highly by your Newsweek rankings. [37] I'd ask you to simply visit the school on a random day without announcing your visit. Go sometime in the spring. Ask to see a list of the senior English teachers and randomly select a few of them to visit. Talk to the teachers without the administration watching and ask them what they really think about working there. Ask them how many of their students are chronically absent, and ask them how many of their students are really ready to go to college. Then talk to some random students. Don't let the administration choose them for you. Ask them to write a few simple paragraphs on a given topic. Ask them to solve a few algebra problems. Gather your own impressions. But don't let the numbers fool you. CHEC is not what its PR machine makes it seem.

— The Reflective Educator
An Urban Teacher's Education blog





This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.